Search

The article presents Philippines v. China court case also known as South China Sea Arbitration, was an arbitration case brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China, concerning maritime entitlements in the South China Sea.

This Article provides an overview of some of the most significant cases concerning charterparties and carriage of goods by sea decided in the United Kingdom during 2015. There is a brief discussion ofselected cases with references in the footnotes to additional cases decided in 2015, which--due to spatial constraints--could not be given a filler treatment.' [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the survey conducted by the University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal on the recent maritime court case decisions of the U.S. within the geographic confines of the Ninth Circuit including Allen v. Maersk Lines Ltd.; Shirrod v. Dir., OWCP; and Strickert v. Neal.

The article focuses on the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co. which deals with maritime law and states that court was not persuaded by plaintiffs argument of not providing an independent basis for removal.

The article discusses the author's claim that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit improperly expanded the scope of a seaman status qualification under the nation's Jones Act in the case Naquin v. Elevating Boats LLC. Legal protections for maritime employees are addressed, along with the treatment of maritime workers in personal injury cases involving U.S. federal courts. American maritime law and federal court jurisdiction are examined, along with statutory interpretations.

The article discusses the University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal Survey that examines decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate, and district courts, within the geographic confines of the Ninth Circuit including Barnes v. Sea Haw. Rafting, LLC.

During the decade-long Qatar v. Bahrain proceedings, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered two Judgments on jurisdiction and admissibility (1994-1995), followed by its decision not to rely on the 82 Qatar documents challenged by Bahrain (1999), and by Judgment on the merits (2001). This article surveys how these complex proceedings led to settlement of a long-standing dispute in the Arabian/Persian Gulf to the satisfaction of both parties and how have they enriched the contributions of the Court to the development of international law. The contributions of the two Qatar v. Bahrain (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) Judgments, including their Opinions, are highlighted in the context of important issues pertaining to the interpretation of treaties and various aspects of the jurisdiction conferred upon the ICJ by a 'framework agreement' (as distinct from a compromis). The analysis of the Qatar v. Bahrain (Merits) Judgment, including its Opinions, substantiates the significant consolidation and further development--in continuation of the formidable jurisprudence of the ICJ and other tribunals, notably the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitral Tribunal--of the principles and rules governing the acquisition of territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. Keywords equidistance, equity, islands, International Court of Justice, low-tide elevations, maritime boundary delimitation, single boundary, territorial acquisition, treaty interpretation

The article presents a survey which examines significant maritime decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate, and the district courts within the Ninth Circuit region. Various cases discussed include Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which was concerning admiralty procedure, Habel v. Grove Farm Fish & Poi, LLC which was related to Jones Act, and Moore v. United States which was regarding discretionary function exception.

On August 4, 2000, an ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal decided that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the merits of the Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute involving Australia/ New Zealand and Japan. Several issues make the Southern Bluefin Tuna an extremely fertile case. This was the first time an arbitral tribunal was constituted under Part XV and Annex VII of UNCLOS. More importantly, the dispute brings forward several issues that are likely to be increasingly present in international litigation in future decades. First, the applicants had a choice of judicial fora in which initiate proceedings. As the number of international judicial bodies continues to expand, similar issues will likely take up the concerns of practitioners and scholars alike. Second, the Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute is one of the few cases in which arbitration has been initiated unilaterally. Third, the dispute raised certain fundamental issues about the structure and institutional architecture of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). For instance, the Arbitral Tribunal considered whether the dispute settlement procedure contained in Part XV of UNCLOS prevailed over dispute settlement procedures in other sectorial and regional agreements, in which instances they prevailed, and to what extent. Finally, the Southern Bluefin Tuna dispute arose from the failure of a regional and sectorial fishing regime. It illustrates what happens when regimes fail to function and sheds some light on when and why they might crash. Keywords southern bluefin tuna, UNCLOS, Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal, ITLOS, international regimes, dispute settlement, arbitration, unilateralism, forum selection

The article focuses on the Admiralty Act of Commonwealth that started as a sea jurisdiction. The main aim of the Admiralty Act is the regulation of admiralty jurisdiction of Australian courts both in actions directed toward a particular person and against an item of property. It discusses the decisions of several cases including CIC Insurance Ltd v. Bankstown Football Club Ltd, Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v. Ferguson, and Owners of Ship "Shin Kobe Maru" v. Empire Shipping Co Inc.

The article discusses displacement and preemption aspects of the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) effect on general maritime law and state tort law punitive damages claims. It discussed many cases which has a lasting effect on the issue. Topics discussed include punitive damages under general maritime law, the OPA and maritime law punitive damages, and displacement of pre-existing maritime claims.

This is the sixth of a series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea both under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention. The main developments during 2009 were the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) case and the commencement of three new maritime boundary cases (between Bangladesh and India, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and Croatia and Slovenia, respectively). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, claiming constitutional authority to do so “as a fit and necessary war measure.” The epic struggle between North and South had been raging for nearly two years. There were over a million soldiers under arms. At Antietam there had been more than 20,000 casualties in the bloodiest single day of battle in American history. 1 But was it, in point of law, a war? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an analysis of the inconsistent awarding of punitive damages in the Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker case concerning the oil spill in 1989. It says that the Supreme Court regards the case from the federal maritime law and not on the subject of constitutional doctrine causing a 1:1 ratio of constitutional limit reducing punitive award from 2.5 billion to 500 million dollars. It adds that using median ratio as a case limit shifts the distribution of punitive compensatory ratio.

The article presents a survey which compiles cases, heard at federal circuits, concerning the enforceability of forum selection clauses (FSC) contained in bills of lading, charter parties, and other maritime contracts in the U.S. The cases are classified into three groups including whether the FSC was enforced, not enforced, and conditionally enforced. It notes a case in Southern District of New York wherein FSC is enforced in which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that it had jurisdiction over the defendants consistent to the FSC contained in the bills of lading.

The article presents a compilation of allision and collision cases, heard at the federal and state courts in 2007-2008 in the U.S. It notes that in allision cases, the incidents are classified by the type of structure with which the vessel allided whereas in collisions, the incidents are categorized chronologically. It cites five groups of information for incident cases such as fault division, circumstances, contributorily negligent acts, rule violated, and citation. It shows that the dominant negligent acts in collision is due to the vessels' failure to reduce speed that led to collision.

The article discusses one of the most significant developments in Korea for the year 2007, which was the enactment of the revised Korean Maritime Law section in the Korean Commercial Code on July 3 of the same year. The Supreme Court rendered its judgement in relation to two maritime transportation cases involving freight forwarders. Included are several new provisions like a seaway bill, electronic transport documentation, multimodal transportation and an increase in the carrier's limitation amount.

The article examines the decision of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in two cases involving Russia and Japan the Tomimaru case and the Hoshinmaru case, including the Tribunal's reasoning and the implications for the development of the law of the sea. Both cases are based on the tribunal's compulsory jurisdiction to allow the prompt release of the ship and its crew under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. Under the convention, coastal states have certain sovereign rights to exploit natural resources within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ).